SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (61748)4/12/2005 8:22:27 AM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
I think about 15% of atmospheric CO2 came from human sources, so there isn't much effect if your other numbers are correct; something like 0.5%, which isn't exactly a big deal.

Over how many years is that?

I know nothing about fancy math, but, somehow that 0.5% sounds like an awful lot to me.

How many years would it take for us to multiply that by 200?



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (61748)4/12/2005 8:11:16 PM
From: Moominoid  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Maurice it is currently at least 30%... and see my post about multiplier effects...



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (61748)4/13/2005 5:04:27 AM
From: Gib Bogle  Respond to of 74559
 
"about 15% of atmospheric CO2 came from human sources"

I might have misremembered the 0.1% context - there was a lot of information stuffed into one hour. Possibly the 0.1% referred to the increase in total GHG as a result of human release of CO2 over some period. Don't quote me.

BTW, the speaker was Chris de Freitas, Assoc. Prof. in the School of Geography and Environmental Science. You would have appreciated him.

geog.auckland.ac.nz


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News